Here's how you can help protect the filibuster

[DesEtoiles]

How would the "nuclear option" eliminate the filibuster?

 Legitimately changing the rule that allows a filibuster would require a 2/3 majority vote, and Republican leaders don't have nearly that much support. Instead, the plan calls for Dick Cheney (who, as Vice President, is also technically the `President of the Senate') to simply make a ruling that the filibuster rule no longer applies to judges. If Republican Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist can twist enough arms to get 50 senators to support this "reinterpretation," the filibuster will be history.

_________________________________

Frist needs 50 votes in favor of Cheney's new interpretation (with the tie-breaking vote to be provided by Cheney!).  Currently he has 49.  Of the 55 Senate Republicans, 6 have either stated flatly that they will not support the "nuclear option" or are still undecided.
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20050323-121608-8533r.htm

When contacting a Senator, I think it would be very effective to make a specific reference to something egregious by one of the nominees (I'll post some replys with info about specific nominees) and ask the Senator if he or she supports this?  Wow, look at this blatant racism, or this payola - do you support this?  Give as much detail as you can.

Here's the list of the 6, and their contact information:

Undecided

Senator Susan Collins (R- ME)
202-224-2523
202-224-2693
http://collins.senate.gov/low/contactemail.htm

Senator John W. Warner (R- VA)
202-224-2023
202-224-6295
http://warner.senate.gov/contact/contactme.htm

Senator John McCain (R- AZ)
202-224-2235
202-228-2862
http://mccain.senate.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=Contact.Home

Senator Chuck Hagel (R- NE)
202-224-4224
202-224-5213
http://hagel.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Offices.Contact

Opposed to the "Nuclear Option"

Senator Lincoln D. Chafee (R- RI)
202-224-2921
202-228-2853
http://chafee.senate.gov/webform.htm

Senator Olympia Snowe (R- ME)
202-224-5344
202-224-1946
[e-mail]

No comment thus far

Senator Thad Cochran (R- MS)
202-224-5054
202-224-9450
http://cochran.senate.gov/contact.htm

Senator John Sununu (R- NH)
202-224-2841
202-228-4131
[e-mail]

George V. Voinovich of Ohio
Senator George Voinovich (R- OH)
202-224-3353
202-228-1382
http://voinovich.senate.gov/contact/index.htm

[DesEtoiles]

1. Priscilla Owen (even ALBERTO GONZALES called her an activist judge)

Justice Priscilla Owen

Nominated to: U.S. Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit

" Anchoring the far-right end of a very conservative court, Priscilla Owen consistently supports big business and special interests against the claims of ordinary Americans...she has tended to distort or rewrite the law to reach desired results."
http://www.independentjudiciary.org/nominees/nominee.cfm?NomineeID=21

"...in Enron Corp. v. Spring Independent School Dist., Owen authored the opinion for a unanimous court that held constitutional a Texas tax law that allowed companies to choose between two dates to evaluate their inventory for tax purposes.6 Owen's opinion saved Enron $225,000 and resulted in lost revenue for the school district, which had challenged the law that allowed companies to select the date on which their inventory would be valued, which minimized the company's tax burden. As reported in many papers, Owen had received $8,600 in campaign contributions from Enron prior to writing the opinion.
http://www.independentjudiciary.org/nominees/nominee.cfm?NomineeID=21

"In FM Properties Operating Co. v. City of Austin, Justice Owen strongly dissented from the court's decision to strike down a state law that had been tailored to allow a particular developer to bypass the city of Austin's municipal water-quality laws.9  The majority pointed out that the law illegally delegated a basic right - the right to pollute - to a private property owner. Owen's dissent was dismissed by the majority as "nothing more than inflammatory rhetoric" thus merit no response.10 Parties affiliated with the developer contributed more than $47,000 to Owen's campaign.  ... serious concerns about the priority she places on the government's responsibility to protect the environment and the health and safety of its citizens.
http://www.independentjudiciary.org/nominees/nominee.cfm?NomineeID=21

Although they served together for a relatively short time in 1999-2000 on the Texas Supreme Court, (now Attorney General) Alberto Gonzales wrote or joined more than a dozen opinions sharply criticizing opinions written or joined by Owen on the court. In most of these cases, Gonzales, a strong conservative on the court, was part of the majority that rejected ultra-conservative Owen dissents as ignoring the plain meaning of the law or otherwise engaging in improper judicial activism to try to reach a particular result. Gonzales repeatedly wrote or joined criticism of Owen's aggressive right-wing judicial activism.  Time and again, Justice Owen attempted to remake the law when it clashed with her ideology.
http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=1726

A recent Texas law requires minors who seek an abortion to notify their parents unless a court grants a "judicial bypass" based on its finding that: the applicant is "mature and sufficiently well informed" to make the decision herself; notification would not be in the applicant's "best interest;" or "notification may lead to physical, sexual, or emotional abuse" of the applicant. In this particular case, the court ruled 6-3 that the minor had "conclusively established the statutory requirements to obtain a judicial bypass." Id. at 361. Owen dissented vigorously, accusing the majority, including Gonzales, of acting "irresponsibly."  She interpreted the statute as requiring a finding that the abortion itself was in the best interest of the minor, going well beyond the "notification in best interest" criteria required by the statute.  Id. at 383. In that case, Gonzales specifically wrote that adopting the dissenters' narrow view "would be an unconscionable act of judicial activism." Id. at 366 (emphasis added).
http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=1726

[googly]

2. Filibuster should be abolished since we will soon be the majority

party in senate and I don't want the pesky repugs to be able
to filibuster our agenda.

[DesEtoiles]

4. filibuster would stay-only being elim. for JUDICIAL/Supreme Court noms

[bunkerbuster1]

14. I think the reThugs will wimp out on this.

I don't think they've got the stones to do that thar Nookyouler option.

If they do:

1) as you point out, when they no longer have the majority, they won't be able to block hard-lefties we might want to put on the bench; and

2) face it--most republicans don't really want those fundie nuts on the bench, they just want to CLAIM that they do. It's good for fundraising.

Just wild-ass guessing on my part, mind you. I'd just as soon retain the status quo, with the majority reined in by the threat of a filibuster. But the country managed without it prior to (I think) 1917 and we'd manage without it in 2005 if need be.

[kris10ep]

15. Just emailed my Senator on the issue...

Senator Cochran in Mississippi is a Republican much more in favor of the environment than most conservatives.

I noted terrible record on env. issues as well as other things I can see him disagreeing with. I hope it helps.

[DesEtoiles]

3. William Pryor - raging fundie

William H. Pryor, Jr.

 Nominated to: Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit  (2004 - present - temporary recess appointee, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit)

William Pryor Jr. served as Attorney General of Alabama, where he took money from Phillip Morris, fought against the anti-tobacco lawsuit until it was almost over, and cost the people of Alabama billions in settlement money for their healthcare system as a result.6 He called Roe v. Wade "the worst abomination of constitutional law in our history," and has consistently argued against federal protections for the civil rights of minorities, lesbian and gay couples, women, and the disabled.7  
http://www.moveonpac.org/team/0316/info.html

"Pryor helped found and lead the Republican Attorneys General Association (RAGA), which raises campaign donations from corporations that its members, as attorneys general, may have a duty to investigate, prosecute or sue. Documents disclosed after Pryor's Senate confirmation hearing show that Pryor may not have been candid with the Judiciary Committee about his knowledge of and personal participation in RAGA fundraising from Alabama companies, companies doing business in Alabama, and tobacco companies. He testified, for example, that he was unaware whether RAGA solicited tobacco companies. But the disclosed documents reportedly show that Pryor himself was assigned to solicit two large tobacco companies that ultimately donated $25,000 apiece.
http://www.independentjudiciary.org/nominees/nominee.cfm?NomineeID=87

    *     "Co-chair of the 2000 Bush-Cheney campaign in Alabama, Pryor was the only attorney general to file an amicus brief in support of President Bush's position in Bush v. Gore, a case involving Florida - not Alabama - election law.

    *     A long-time proponent of gun rights and 2001 recipient of the National Rifle Association's Legislative Achievement Award, Pryor filed an amicus brief challenging a unique Texas statute prohibiting possession of firearms by individuals subject to temporary restraining orders in domestic violence cases. Alabama had no similar statute.

    *     An ally of big tobacco and a fierce critic of what he calls "leftist bounty hunters (also known as trial lawyers)," Pryor vigorously opposed the lawsuit that other states brought against the tobacco industry to recover the Medicaid costs of treating smoking-related illnesses. Pryor's staunch opposition to the suit, which he ultimately joined at the eleventh hour, cost Alabamians billions of dollars in relief.

    *     Condemning any constitutional right protecting "the choice of one's partner" as "logically extend to activities like prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia," Pryor submitted a virulently anti-gay amicus brief supporting Texas' one-of-a-kind law banning same-sex sodomy. In the brief, Pryor went on to suggest that states have a prerogative to recognize that "homosexual activity" is harmful and "exposes both the individual and the public to deleterious spiritual and physical consequences."

    *     Opposed federal court remedial action in the face of what he admitted to be Alabama's non-compliance with a settlement involving its foster care system, declaring: "My job is to make sure the state of Alabama isn't run by a federal court. My job isn't to come here and help children."

    *     Pryor called Roe v. Wade "the worst abomination of constitutional law in our history."

    *      Pryor says he agrees with Justice Scalia that "the Constitution says nothing about a right to abortion."

    *      Pryor said: "I will never forget January 22, 1973, the day seven members of our highest court ripped the Constitution and ripped out the life of millions of unborn children."

    *     Pryor publicly declared that "the challenge of the next millennium will be to preserve the American experiment by restoring its Christian perspective.

    *     In 1997, Pryor, along with the Christian Coalition's Ralph Reed, attended a "Save the Commandments" rally in Montgomery, Alabama, where he stated: "God has chosen, through his son Jesus Christ, this time and this place for all Christians ... to save our country and save our courts.
http://www.independentjudiciary.org/nominees/nominee.cfm?NomineeID=87

[DesEtoiles]

5. Brett Kavanaugh - insider, Ken Starr protege, no experience as a judge

Brett Kavanaugh

Nominated to: U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit

"Brett Kavanaugh appears to have been chosen for a seat on the D.C. Circuit only because of his involvement in some of the most ideologically charged political issues of his time. Kavanaugh has been a lawyer for a little over 13 years. He has never been a judge, or a law professor. He has litigated cases for about eight years but has never been involved in a trial. As Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr's associate counsel, he pursued the unfounded allegation that Vince Foster was murdered rather than committing suicide, worked on the Monica Lewinski investigation and drafted the grounds for impeachment section of the Starr report to Congress. In addition, Kavanaugh was responsible for attacking the Clinton Administration's claims of privilege, testing the boundaries of executive and other privileges in order to gain more information for the Starr investigation...Since joining the Bush administration, however, Kavanaugh has become a zealous defender of executive privilege working to shield the White House from inquiries from the public, Congress and even historians wanting to see the papers of past presidents.  He has also been one of the White House's point people in the president's campaign to pack the courts with right-wing extremists."
http://www.independentjudiciary.org/nominees/nominee.cfm?NomineeID=82

[Still_Loves_John]

6. I think another good technique

Is bringing up instances of the minority republicans using filibusters in the past. The non-crazy republicans understand that they will not always be in the majority, and they may need the filibuster one day.

[DesEtoiles]

9. Frist used filibuster then got caught lying about it - see this:

 Bill Frist attempted to use filibuster to block Clinton nominee (then lied about it)

"Documents obtained by American Progress show Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist participated in an effort to block one of Bill Clinton's judicial nominees via filibuster, then lied about it.

In recent weeks, Frist has been relentlessly preaching about the evils of judicial filibusters. Speaking to the Federalist Society on November 12, Frist said filibustering judicial nominees is "radical. It is dangerous and it must be overcome." <1> Frist called judicial filibusters "nothing less than a formula for tyranny by the minority." When Bill Clinton was President, however, Frist engaged in the same behavior he is now condemning.

In 1996 Clinton nominated Judge Richard Paez to the 9th Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals. Conservatives in Congress held up Paez's nomination for more than four years, culminating in an attempted filibuster on March 8, 2000. Bill Frist was among those who voted to filibuster Paez. <2>

Frist was directly confronted with this vote by Bob Schieffer on Face the Nation (11/21/04). Schieffer said "Senator, a group called The American Progress Action Fund sent me a question to ask you. And here's what it says: 'Senator Frist, if you oppose the use of the filibuster for judicial nominations, why did you vote to filibuster Judge Richard Paez when President Clinton nominated him to the 9th Circuit?'" <3> Frist replied "Filibuster, cloture, it gets confusing--as a scheduling or to get more information is legitimate. But no to kill nominees."

But American Progress has obtained a document that proves Frist was not, as he suggested, voting to filibuster Paez for scheduling purposes or to get more information. He voted to filibuster Paez for the very reason he said was illegitimate - to block Paez's nomination indefinitely.

On March 9, 2000, Former Senator Bob Smith (R-NH) issued a press release describing the intent of the Paez filibuster vote the day before. The release says Senator Smith "built a coalition of several moderate and conservative Senators in an effort to block" Paez's nomination. <4> Frist was a part of that coalition. Smith did not organize the filibuster to get more information on Paez (after all his nomination had been pending for four years). He organized the filibuster because he had already decided Paez was "out of the mainstream of political though and...should be on the court".

<1> Frist Addresses Federalist Society 2004 National Convention, 11/12/04
<2> Cloture Motion RE: Nom. of Richard Paez to be U.S. Circuit Judge, 3/8/00
<3> Face the Nation, 11/14/04
<4> Smith Leaders Effort to Block Activists Judges, 3/9/00"

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=281089

[DesEtoiles]

7. Willaim Haynes - DOD attorney involved with torture memos

William Haynes

Nominated to: U.S. Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit

"William Haynes III served as the chief legal counsel for the Defense Department, where he championed the legal doctrine that led to the torture at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay. He advised the White House that in a time of war the President should be considered exempt from all international and domestic laws barring torture. Haynes also developed the "enemy combatant" doctrine that allows for United States citizens to be detained without trial, official charges or access to a lawyer -- forever -- at the sole discretion of the President.8"
http://www.moveonpac.org/team/0316/info.html

"Mr. Haynes has spent the bulk of his legal career as a lawyer in the Department of Defense and, most recently, as the department's principle author and defender of the administration's plan for military tribunals, its denial of Geneva Convention protections to persons captured on the battlefield, and its indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without access to counsel or the ability to challenge their detention."
http://www.independentjudiciary.org/news/release.cfm?ReleaseID=136

"Pentagon General Counsel William Haynes is a career military lawyer who has almost no  courtroom experience to qualify him for a lifetime seat on the Fourth Circuit.  Haynes has been  nominated to a Virginia seat on the court, despite having no connection to that state that he  would represent as a judge on that court, and few or no ties to the other states in the Fourth  Circuit.  Furthermore, Haynes's close ties the Bush Administration and his active participation in  the administration's efforts to restrict legal rights for both citizen and non-citizen "enemy  combatants" suggests that his nomination is a reward more for loyalty and political compatibility  than for professional distinction."  
http://www.independentjudiciary.org/nominees/nominee.cfm?NomineeID=73

[Nite Owl]

8. Did you hear anything about this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3371310

I just saw it briefly go by twice. I looked over at USA Today and finally got onto Bloomberg News and there is nothing there. Guess that is good news but this is scarey. In light of the Schiavo issue I thought that more would defect from the whole idea of the nuclear option but maybe not for some reason. I hope this news is wrong since there seems to be no link to it but keep your eyes out for it.

Who on that list is most likely to have been bought or one of the dems defected?

[DesEtoiles]

10. Terrence William Boyle - reversed 150+ TIMES by convervative 4th Circuit

Judge Terrence William Boyle

Nominated to: Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit

"...a right-wing judicial activist who has sought to roll back well-settled precedents and override the express will of Congress. His activism has produced many opinions that are, often in the name of "states' rights," hostile to civil rights claims brought by African Americans and people with disabilities, among others. Even the conservative Fourth Circuit has chided Judge Boyle for going too far, repeatedly reversing or criticizing him for subverting basic procedural rules and misconstruing clear legal principles."  
http://www.independentjudiciary.org/nominees/nominee.cfm?NomineeID=11

"Judge Boyle has been reversed over 150 times by the Fourth Circuit - twice the rate of the average judge. ...The Fourth Circuit has routinely criticized Judge Boyle for throwing out cases without giving individuals - especially civil rights plaintiffs - a fair opportunity to be heard. The Court has reversed him, for instance, for ignoring his statutorily-mandated duty to review the decisions of magistrate judges, violating procedural rules requiring him to give plaintiffs a chance to present evidence before dismissing their cases, and flouting other clear-cut standards prohibiting him from dismissing cases when there are contested factual issues.1"
http://www.independentjudiciary.org/nominees/nominee.cfm?NomineeID=11

"Judge Boyle twice decided that a North Carolina Congressional district drawn to have a population that was about 50% African-American violated the Constitution.2 The Supreme Court reversed both decisions. In the first reversal, Justice Thomas, writing for a unanimous court, found that Judge Boyle had prematurely decided in favor of the white plaintiffs before trial, despite the continued existence of factual disputes. In the second reversal, the Court found that, at the trial it had ordered, Judge Boyle committed "clear error" by attributing the state's district-drawing to predominantly racial, rather than political, considerations."
http://www.independentjudiciary.org/nominees/nominee.cfm?NomineeID=11

"Judge Boyle has ignored binding precedent to dismiss civil rights claims brought by African Americans. In Ellis v. North Carolina, he threw out an employment discrimination case, saying that state employers were immune from suit. Because the Supreme Court had come to the opposite conclusion long before, the Fourth Circuit summarily reversed the decision in a three-paragraph, unpublished opinion.6"
http://www.independentjudiciary.org/nominees/nominee.cfm?NomineeID=11

"Judge Boyle was an aide to Republican Senator Jesse Helms of North Carolina and, at Senator Helms' request, was nominated to the Fourth Circuit by President George H.W. Bush."
http://www.independentjudiciary.org/nominees/nominee.cfm?NomineeID=11

[DesEtoiles]

11. More info on all the judges here: (it's worse than you think)

Opposed because they are on the radical edge, not because they are conservative

"It isn't that they are conservatives; it's that their records indicate a willingness to bypass the law to achieve an ideologically driven result."
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=11082

"...have spent their careers on the radical edge of the right wing"
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=11082

_________________

Two sites that have detailed information on the nominees:

Progress for America:
http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=14172

Alliance for Justice:
http://www.independentjudiciary.org/

[DesEtoiles]

12. Suggested format for letters to the editor (Senate Dems won popular vote!)

This is how I would set up a letter to the editor:

About the judges:


 Senate Republicans threatening to change the Senate rules to eliminate the use of the filibuster when debating judicial nominees, permitting them to ram extremist nominees through Congress based on a simple majority vote.

 About 95% of Bush's judicial nominees already approved.  Those that remain, however, are being opposed not because they are conservative, but because they represent the fringe of the extreme radical right and are out-of-step with mainstream America, threatening civil rights, the environment and the very integrity of the judicial system itself.

 For example .

 These nominees, as well as the others resubmitted by Bush, are poor candidates on their own merits, regardless of partisan politics, and do not deserve to be approved by the Senate.  


About the filibuster:


 If it is unconstitutional or unprecedented to filibuster judicial nominees, as some on the right have claimed, then why has the right used that very tactic in the past?  Even the Senate Majority Leader, Bill Frist.....

 Democrats won the popular vote for the Senate (great info here:  http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/3/14/124043/336).  It is therefore incorrect to call their views the minority view

[DesEtoiles]

13. Important stats on confirmed/rejected nominees by Dems and Repubs

STATS

More than 95% of Bush's nominees have already been confirmed

206 Bush nominees confirmed. Only 10 Filibustered. (95.4% Approved), according to People for the American Way.
http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=14172

List of pending nominees to the Court of Appeals here:
http://www.usdoj.gov/olp/judicialnominations.htm

By contrast

...while Democratic senators used the filibuster to block 10 of Bush's 229 first-term judicial nominees, the Republican-controlled Senate prevented approximately 60 Clinton nominees from even receiving a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, much less a vote on the Senate floor. And while Senate Republicans under Clinton strictly enforced a "blue slip" rule -- which allows one home-state senator to prevent a nomination from moving forward -- they greatly relaxed this rule under Bush to circumvent Democrats' objections to several nominees.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200502180004

...The Christian Science Monitor noted on May 12, 2003, "some 60 Clinton nominees never had a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee," which served "as effective a block to confirmation as a filibuster," according to Democrats. Similarly, as The Washington Post reported on September 5, 2003, "Senate Republicans enraged Democrats by bottling up about 60 of President Bill Clinton's nominees."
http://mediamatters.org/items/200502180004

[Cats Against Frist]

18. Fascists have short, short memories

[DesEtoiles]

16. Rumor going around-they will try a surprise quick vote on filibuster soon

[Hippo_Tron]

17. E-mailed all of the undecideds

[DesEtoiles]

19. kick